5780447564

i

114

Brata Gadek

law. Tbcrc arc discrcpancics, and no court cases lo datę regarding the ara in qucstion. Thus thc prcscnt study aims at prcscnting the State of tbe w as rcgards Polish Icgislation, as wcll as indicating arcas of potcntial disagrtc-ir.cnis and discrcpancics in the futurę.

U

The starting point for our discussion will be Art. 10 point 1 of tbe In on rendering services on-linę (henoeforth referred to as Lr.s.o). According to this rcgulation, “it is forbidden to send unsolicited commercial contctr addresscd at a dclincd rccipicnt using clectronic mcans, in particular dat. ronić mail." Point 3 of tbe rcgulation in question quahfics such action a an act of unfair competition, pursuant to thc law on eliminating unfair competition dated April 16th. 1993 (hcnceforth referred lo as 1-e.u.c).’ Moreover, disputebing unsolicited commercial Information is punishable b> law. Art. 24 of l.r.s.o bas it that thc sender of unsolicited commercial content by clectronic means sball bc (ined. The rigorous consequenccs raise tbe question of the scopc of the ban that Art 10 mentions. Clcarly, thc ła» docs not prohibit thc usc of clectronic mail. but limits thc probihition to a certain kind of information. Thus thc ban is rcstrictcd to commercial information dircctod at a definod redpient. Whilc this definition appean elear, in practicc it may generate doubł. In actual lifc, "commercial information" and “dclincd rccipicnt” can bc ambiguous This may lead to a divcrsification in thc scopc of illcgal activities. The term “defined redpient" ments clarification from two angles. Firstly, “defined" rcquires explanatioo Secoodly, thcrc is the question of wbo tbe "rccipicnt" is. “Defined" impłier that thc rccipicnt nceds to bc madę concrctc. In other words, ccrtaia charactcristics have to bc delincated that will dilTcrcntiate that person front others. This individualisation should bc donc as the information is bdit| sent. Only then docs the ban spedfied in Art. 10 appły. To reiterate, tbe rcgulation in question aims at preventing such ncgalivc behaviour as pc¹-tering, excessivc intrusion into ones privacy or hindering thc usc of clcctronk mail. This undcsirable situution will only occur when advcrusing is geared at a dcarly defined subject. It iR the naturę of the unwanted bchaviour tb¹: determines the mcaning of “defined rccipicnt." Obviously, thc scopc of An 10 is limited to dispalching commercial information to a redpient who i> clcarly defined from thc outset.

The addrcsscc should bc individuali$cd as thc information is bcing koc not after the evcnt. As it is. thc individualixing fcature is thc email addren

This łcads to thc conclusion that if an ad sen is addrcssed at thc generał public, even if thc rccipicnt should bc spccified afterwards. thc legał norm a qucstion docs not apply. Thcrcforc thc ban does not concem placing adrcrts on onc’s website or sending it to discussion groups.'

The ncxt step is to detemunc wbo cxactly is mcant by “rccipicnt.” It *eems fcasibłc to list two options bero and assumc that by introducing thc ban on unsolicited commercial Information thc legislator aims at proleeling:

1)    cvery rccipicnt. regardless of their status, or

2)    cxclusively consumcrs, thereby nanoving commercial rclations bctwccn entrepreneurs from thc scopc of Art. 10.

Tbe first option appears crroncous.’ In my belief. it is only consumcrs who can benefit from thc ban in ąuestion. This assumption can bc borne out by thc following argumentation: thc term “rccipicni" ałonc cannot determine the group of pcople proleeted against unwanted commercial information. Outside Art. 10, thc otber provisions of tbe law under scrutiny herc also fail to providc dues. Although An. 2 of the law spedfies thc basie tcrmmology, it docs not indudc thc cxprcssion ‘‘a defined rccipicnt of unsolicited information." This mcans that our analysis has to tackle the rationale bchind thc rcgulation. Its um has alrcady bccn discusscd. To reiterate, protection against entrepreneurs’ accssive intrusion into consumcrs’ privacy has bccn givcn priority. The choscn iolutions catcr for strcngthcning the consumer's role in rclations under civil law. a concept that has bccn present in Europc for ycars. Naturally, this argumentation is not justificd when it cotr.cs to commcraal rclations bctwccn entrepreneurs. In this particular casc thc status of cconomic partners can bc ałsumed to bc evtn Thus thc legislator occds not intcrfcrc and strivc to strikc a balanoc bctwccn thc individual partics. Similarly, thc frcqucnt argument for the protection of privacy, herc cotKcrning profcssionals, is this casc irrdesant The Professional charactcr of activity curtails privacy to a ncccssary minimum. The only casc for arguing whether entrepreneurs should also bc proleeted against a flood of unwanted information is thc possibility of uncontrolled ovcrusc of the mailbox. Howcvcr, thcrc is an obvious diflcrcncc between “flooding” one²s mailbox and sending short advcrtiscmcnts every now and tben. The former is a despicable activity, the latter - not necessarily $o. Far from being harmful for companies, this phenomenon is actually hclpful in farnitbing them with information. In the light of the above, one has lo dśagrce with thc assumption that Art. 10 of l.r.s.o placcs an unconditional ban on sending unsolicited commcraal information to entrepreneurs. This docs not predude a discussion on whether tbe currcnt State of affairs docs not mean

1

Ad of 1604 1993 r.. uoified KM of 2003. No. J3. Hem 1503.

2

   See D. Kasprzycki, in: Prano Internetu {Internet Law], ed. P. Podrccki. Warszawa JON. p. JOT.

*    D. Kasprzycki, op et, p 507-508 seans to be of a diflerent opmioa